November 3rd is coming quickly, and before we vote, maybe we should ask ourselves a question we don’t hear very often:

When was the last time a candidate told us what government would stop doing?

Most of us are compassionate people. When someone is struggling, we want to help. That’s human nature.

Politicians know that too.

So every election we hear promises to create another program, provide another benefit, fund another service or solve another problem. Many of these ideas begin with good intentions.

But good intentions still cost money.

According to the Tax Foundation’s state and local tax burden study, New York’s state and local tax burden was estimated at 15.9 percent of state income in 2022. Add federal income taxes and payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare, and then consider the many taxes families encounter throughout everyday life, and it isn’t difficult for the combined tax burden of some New York households to approach roughly one-third of their income.

One-third represents about four months of earnings.

Not everyone pays exactly that amount. Some pay less and some pay more. But the larger point shouldn’t be lost: government costs money, and every time we ask government to do something else, somebody eventually has to pay for it.

I don’t blame one politician or one political party for this.

I call it government by inertia.

A problem appears. Government creates a program to address it. The program gets a budget. It gets employees. Regulations are written. Organizations begin depending upon it. Eventually, eliminating that program becomes much harder than creating it was in the first place.

Then another problem comes along, and we repeat the process.

Over decades, government doesn’t necessarily grow because somebody planned for it to become enormous. It grows because adding something is politically easier than taking something away.

Maybe we voters have helped create this problem.

We’ve become accustomed to asking candidates, “What are you going to do for me?”

This November, I’d like us to ask something different:

What unnecessary regulations can be eliminated? What outdated programs can be ended? What spending can be reduced? What earmarks can be rejected? And where can government simply get out of the way?

That isn’t an argument against compassion.

There will always be people who genuinely need help, and a decent society shouldn’t ignore them. But most of us are capable of taking responsibility for ourselves, our families and our communities.

And perhaps compassion doesn’t always have to travel through government before reaching another human being.

Leave more money in our pockets and let us help the struggling family down the street. Let us support our food pantries, churches, charities and community organizations. Let us help an elderly neighbor or a friend who just lost a job.
That’s compassion too.

Maybe we could actually become a more compassionate society by depending a little less on government to practice compassion for us.

Government has legitimate and necessary responsibilities. The question is where those responsibilities should end.

So as November 3rd approaches, when a candidate tells you everything government can do for you, listen carefully.

Then ask one more question:

What are you willing to ask government to stop doing?

Because turning society around may not require another government program.

It may begin with government trusting us to do a little more for ourselves... and allowing us to keep more of what we earn so we can do more for one another.